RE ROMULO JENIFER DE GUZMAN AND ANOTHER

CACV 376/2022, [2023] HKCA 731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2482 OF 2018)

______________________

______________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 11 April 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 423) dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 5 September 2022 refusing to give them leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 20 April 2023, the 1^st applicant filed a Notice of Motion on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, neither of the applicants has put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The Notice of Motion stated the following as grounds in support of the application:

“The judgment made with Court of Appeal dismissed the possibility of error of judgment of the TCAB. TCAB has disregarded my dangerous situation in Philippines. Solorio will definitely harm me. And Immigration Officer is not assessing my case based on local context.”

7.  What was stated in the Notice of Motion does not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal. Critically, the applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Further, in light of the Torture Claim Appeals Board’s rejection of the applicants’ case that there was a real chance or risk that Solorio would harm them (see [9] and [10] of our judgment), there is no factual support for the assertion that the applicants would be in danger and harmed by Solorio, if refouled. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.